Richard Burr

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, and I reiterate that if for some reason there is an objection--and I think there will be tonight--either before we swear in a new Congress or after we swear in a new Congress, I promise my colleagues that this place will come to a grinding halt, and we will take up through regular order the Lumbee Recognition Act. We will debate it for as long as people want to, and we will make the case as to why this discrimination is despicable. So, at this time, as if in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1964 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise and in a moment I will ask unanimous consent to right a wrong that has lingered for over a century and to call up and pass H.R. 1964, the Lumbee Recognition Act. Prior to that, I want to say that I am honored, with my colleague Senator Tillis, to represent the Lumbee people. The Lumbee are the largest Native American Tribe east of the Mississippi River, with a membership of over 60,000. They have called the present-day counties of Robeson, Scotland, Hoke, and Cumberland their home in North Carolina. They have been a cohesive part of the community in North Carolina for centuries, and they have developed unique Tribal instructions that have served their membership well in the face of extraordinary adversity. They have been teachers, farmers, doctors, small business owners, sheriffs, clerks of court, State legislators, and judges. Many have protected our Nation by serving in the Armed Forces. Their contribution to their community, to the State of North Carolina, and to the country is innumerable. Their commitment to education is unparalleled. In the 1800s, the State authorized the Tribe to run the State's school district for Lumbee children. The State also authorized the opening of a specially advanced Indian school known as the Normal School to train teachers to teach in Lumbee Indian schools. Although the State provided no money for construction for the facilities, the Lumbees pulled together and constructed an Indian Normal School of their own. Since then, the Indian school has been in operation continuously. Today it is the University of North Carolina at Pembroke. The State of North Carolina recognized the Lumbee Tribe in 1885. Three years later, the Tribe began its quest for full recognition. Over the next 50 years, they repeatedly petitioned the Federal Government for assistance but to no avail. Then, during the height of the shameful termination era, Congress passed the Lumbee Act of 1956. This partial recognition designated the Lumbees residing in Robeson and adjoining counties of North Carolina as the ``Lumbee Indians of North Carolina,'' while simultaneously blocking the Lumbees from accessing Federal services and benefits available to other federally recognized Tribes. It is nothing short of discrimination. To put this in context, four other Tribes were terminated by Congress in 1956, like the Lumbees. All have had their Federal recognition status restored. Only the Lumbees have yet to receive the full Federal recognition they deserve. As a matter of fact, in 2018, this Senate recognized Indian Tribes. In 2019, seven Tribes in Virginia were recognized by this Congress and this Senate. It is unfortunate while the Lumbee Tribe is incredibly resilient, decades of discrimination have caused severe economic consequences for the people. Robeson is one of the poorest counties in the United States. The 1956 law has put them on an unequal footing compared to other federally recognized Tribes and has prevented them from obtaining access to critical services through the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. This is simply unjust and it is immoral. To correct this injustice, since 1987, members of North Carolina's congressional delegation from both sides of the aisle have repeatedly come together to introduce the Lumbee Recognition Act, which would grant full Federal recognition to the Tribe. Over the past 11 years, I have been proud to be the lead sponsor of this legislation in the Senate, and it has always been a bipartisan effort. This year, the bill was led by a Democratic Member of the House of Representatives, G. K. Butterfield, and supported by Congressman Hudson and Congressman Bishop, both Republicans. Last month, the House passed the Lumbee Recognition bill by voice vote unanimously. Let me say that again--by voice vote unanimously. You would think that this great deliberative body could process and understand the--really the discrimination that is going on here to these folks. People claim that the Lumbees are not a Tribe. Yet read the statistics--it is the largest Tribe east of the Mississippi River. I think they finally educated the House. But despite the overwhelming support for doing the right thing, Congress has yet to actually do it. The time for excuses is over. The time for action is now. It is time to finally do what should have been done 130 years ago. It is time for the Federal Government to recognize the Lumbees for the Tribe they are. I have had a great partner in Senator Tillis, and I would yield to him for any comments he would like to make.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, last month the Senate confirmed the newest Justice to the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett. As members of this body, one of our great privileges and weightiest responsibilities is to fulfill the role of ``advice and consent'' provided in the Constitution to examine and, if merited, confirm the President's nominees. In the case of the Federal judiciary, not only will these nominees out serve many of us in the Senate, their rulings will shape the fabric of our Nation the way that affects generations. It is with a great understanding of this that I consider judicial nominees and also why I am proud to have been able to vote in support of Justice Barrett's confirmation. Much has been said about her legal abilities and credentials and how she has consistently distinguished herself as a student, a law clerk and practitioner, academic, and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet two characteristics beyond her stellar resume enabled me to decisively cast my vote for her to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States: her respect for the Constitution and her character. Throughout her career, Justice Barrett has shown she will uphold the Constitution and that she understand the checks and balances that are a part of our democracy. She has stated multiple times that ``It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions,'' and her writing and her statements and her opinions for the Seventh Circuit demonstrate her respect for the rule of law; for the responsibilities of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches; and for interpreting the law in accordance with the ``the meaning it had at the time people ratified it.'' This understanding is crucial for judges to ensure that the legislature has its proper role, that the Constitution is followed as written and amended when changes are necessary, and that our system has the proper checks and balances. With regards to her character, Judge Barrett's career and life demonstrate the kind of person she is. She has received public awards, including the Notre Dame Law School's Distinguished Teaching Award three times, being selected by graduating law students as a professor ``who exhibits excellence in leadership, friendship, legal knowledge, legal teaching, and professional ability.'' She has received the accolade of her fellow clerks on the Supreme Court, including the clerks of the late Justice Ginsburg, who called her ``smart, honorable, and fair-minded.'' She was lauded by fellow professors at Notre Dame as someone who has ``in abundance all of the other qualities that shape extraordinary jurists: discipline, intellect, wisdom, impeccable temperament, and above all, fundamental decency and humanity.'' It goes without saying that these are the qualities of an individual who we want serving on the highest court of our land. For a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, an individual must be the entire package. I am confident that Justice Barrett's credentials, judicial philosophy, and character will serve our Nation well for decades to come, and I am honored to have supported her nomination.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I rise to, in a minute, ask unanimous consent to call up and pass the Intercountry Adoption Information Act of 2019, but first let me say that this is a strong bipartisan bill that was first introduced in March of 2019, with Senators Cardin, Blunt, Klobuchar, Tillis, Brown, and Wicker as original cosponsors. When the House considered its version of the bill last year, it passed 397 to 0. Let repeat that, 397 to 0. No House Member objected to it. Our country is divided on many issues right now, but one thing that unites most of us is the belief that all children deserve to grow up in a permanent, loving home. This is a matter of justice and recognizing the intrinsic dignity in every human being. Many, many Americans have done more than just hold this belief; they have acted on it, adopting children both domestically and internationally. According to the most recent available statistics, however, intercountry adoption has dramatically declined in recent years. Last year, fewer than 3,000 children were adopted in the United States--down from nearly 23,000 in 2004. There are numerous reasons for this decline, many of which warrant continued efforts to ensure that orphan children are given the chance to grow up in a loving home, whether in their own country or here in the United States. We must address any barriers by examining our own policies and how they are implemented and by working internationally to help more children grow up in families. Each year, the State Department releases its annual report on intercountry adoptions--a key document that keeps families, adoption agencies, and policymakers informed about the state of adoption. The report is publicly available, and it includes, among other things, the number of intercountry adoptions involving immigration to the United States and the country from which each child emigrates, the time required for completion of the adoption, and the information on the adoption agencies, their fees, and their work. But to better tackle this issue, we need to provide more transparency and accountability about some of the critical factors affecting intercountry adoption. The Intercountry Adoption Information Act adds additional key elements to this report by requiring the State Department to provide information on, one, countries that have enacted policies to prevent adoptions from the United States; two, actions the State Department has taken which have prevented adoptions to the United States; and, three, for each of these, how the State Department has worked to encourage the resumption of intercountry adoptions. There are children around the world whose only chance to grow up in a family is through the Intercountry Adoption Program. There are families in the United States who are eager to open their arms, their homes, their hearts to these children. I ask unanimous consent, at this time, to call up and pass H.R. 1952, to further transparency accountability and to ensure we are working toward the goal of enabling all children to have families which love them. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 1952 and the House proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I now would like to talk about a special project in North Carolina which involves my former partner from North Carolina, Senator Kay Hagan. We are currently in the process of building a brand-new FAA tower at the Piedmont Triad International Airport in Greensboro, NC. The bill before us would name the currently under-construction air traffic tower after Senator Kay Hagan. The late Senator Hagan worked tirelessly to secure the funding for the new tower, and it will serve as a fitting tribute to her legacy as a Senator and her work on behalf of the citizens of North Carolina. Once completed in 2022, the 180-foot tower will not only provide a state-of-the-art traffic facility for PTI Airport but also serve other general aviation airports in a rather large geographic region. In one of her last public appearances, in June of 2019, Senator Hagan was able to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony of that FAA tower. This bill has bipartisan support in the Senate, including Senators Klobuchar, Warner, and Tillis. A companion bill has also been introduced in the House by Representative Budd with a majority of the delegation supporting, including Representatives Price, Butterfield, and Adams. This is a testament to Senator Hagan and shows how we can continue to work together to not only achieve great things for our constituents but also recognize the achievements of public servants like Kay Hagan. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4762, introduced earlier today.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, that is all the unanimous consent requests I have today, but since the floor is vacant, let me take this opportunity to say that the American people have just seen that the Senate can function, the Senate can pass legislation, the Senate can find legislation that both sides agree on. Yes, we, quite frankly, have issues on which we disagree, but why not spend the balance of this week, the balance of this year, focused on the things that we can find agreement on and come to this floor and debate them and pass them. There are many more things that we agree upon, on both sides of the aisle, than we disagree upon. There are some hot-button issues that we will probably never find unanimity on, but there are many, many things that affect thousands, if not millions, of people's lives in this country that we can do by simple unanimous consent. It just takes a willingness of 100 members of the U.S. Senate to agree to take it up. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Don't be the one or don't be part of the contingent that objects to something. If it is in the best interest of this institution, of this country, of the American people, let it come up. Let it have a debate, and let it have a vote--hopefully, a unanimous consent request like we have just seen. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I am very pleased to support the Great American Outdoors Act. This is an effort that is many years in the making, so I am gratified the majority leader has taken this historic step for the future of our natural landscape. When the President signs this bill into law, as he has indicated he will do, it will do two incredibly important things. It will finally, after 55 years, fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund at its authorized level. It will also address the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks and public lands. This will be an historic achievement to preserve America's most treasured places for generations to come, and I could not be more proud to be a part of it. As my colleagues know, I have long been a champion of LWCF. LWCF is America's most successful conservation program. It is effective. It is proven. And it costs taxpayers nothing. Over the years, LWCF has supported more than 42,000 outdoor recreation projects. It has benefited every State in the country. In North Carolina, it has helped preserve parks, trails, and outdoor sites from the Great Smoky Mountains to the Outer Banks. After a hard-fought battle by those of us who have long recognized LWCF's centrality to our conservation efforts, last year, Congress permanently authorized the program. But there was still one essential piece missing: full funding. In recent years, the program consistently received less than half the amount it was authorized for. I must remind my colleagues that this was essentially theft from the program. It derives its own funding to achieve its $900 million level, yet we have given it far less than that nearly every year it has been in existence. This bill will change that. Going forward, the $900 million that annually flows into the fund will finally be fully dedicated to the good things LWCF provides, from securing access to recreational and hunting lands, to protecting watersheds and preserving habitats for wildlife and endangered species. In addition to fully funding LWCF, the Great American Outdoors Act will address the deferred maintenance backlog in our national parks, forests, and fish and wildlife refuges. My home state of North Carolina is blessed with some of the most iconic public lands in the world: Great Smokies National Park, the Blue Ridge Parkway, Cape Hatteras and Cape Lookout National Seashores, Pisgah National Forest, and Lake Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, just to name a few. Millions visit these special places each year, and they support tens of thousands of jobs. Unfortunately, the Federal Government has not been able to provide the resources necessary to maintain these treasures at the level they deserve. For example, at the Blue Ridge Parkway, as of 2018, the maintenance backlog was over $500 million, but the parkway receives only $15 to $20 million a year for maintenance work. This bill will help fill those gaps by dedicating $1.9 billion a year from energy development on Federal lands to address maintenance needs at our national parks and public lands. We would not be here without the efforts of many people, but I would like to give special thanks to our colleagues Cory Gardner and Steve Daines. I have been on the frontlines on this issue for years, and I know they worked extremely hard to build the bipartisan coalition behind this bill. I would also like to thank my colleagues on both sides who I have worked with for years to get to this point on LWCF: Joe Manchin, Maria Cantwell, Lamar Alexander, and many others. I encourage each and every Senator here today to support this critical legislation. Future generations will thank them for it.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I think divine intervention has played a part here with this exchange and the comments of my colleagues because I am here to pay tribute to my good friend Tom Coburn, who, on March 28, passed away--our colleague and, more importantly, a dear friend. I almost sat in the cloakroom and then came out here, thinking this could be a conversation that Dr. Coburn could be having on the Senate floor about the need to accomplish things, to think outside the box. Yet, as my good friend from Illinois said, don't destroy the gold standard that is there; find a way to work within it. Dr. Coburn had a lifetime of doing that. To pay tribute to a friend and a colleague, I actually have to rewind 26 years, when both Tom Coburn and I came to the House of Representatives in a large class. It was alphabetical, so you can see how ``B'' and ``C'' would be close and how Chambliss would be a friend and Latham. We were a cadre of folks who really sized up very quickly whom it could trust. To understand Tom Coburn is to understand that this was a guy with an incredibly diverse background in that he ran a medical device company, in that he was an OB/GYN, in that he experienced things in life and, in my case, was a little bit older. To understand Tom Coburn is to remember the commercial wherein the bull went into the china store, and no matter which way it turned, it was always going to break something. Tom believed that you had to break something to understand whether it was important or whether it was just clutter. I think, like every new Member of Congress, you come in with a belief that you are going to change the world but have no idea how to do it, and you find that people who have been there for their careers hold all of the cards, and that is the knowledge of how that legislation was crafted and why it was done. To understand Tom Coburn is to realize that this didn't scare him. Tom knew a lot, and when he hit things he didn't know, he sounded like he did; therefore, people were scared to take him on. As a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on which we both served, Tom was incredibly instrumental in healthcare policy, in medical device issues. Tom was a practicing OB/GYN when he got to the House and then, later on, when he got to the Senate, and he never could understand why he could not go back to Oklahoma on the weekends and deliver babies. Now, this is a man who had delivered tens of thousands of babies over his career in Oklahoma, but the way the Senate rules are--they are so antiquated--you couldn't go home and keep up your license to deliver babies because you could not earn money. Tom challenged that when he was in the U.S. Senate. He challenged that antiquated rule, and he lost. So, as I sat and listened to this debate that was about healthcare, I could only sit there and think about the argument that Tom Coburn had made about this antiquated rule that what you came in with and practiced in civilian life you had to throw overboard here. You could no longer do it. Tom decided he would go back on the weekends and deliver babies. Yet, rather than have them make payments to him, they would make payments to nonprofit organizations in his hometown of Tulsa, and they would make them commensurate as to what they could afford. So, for a guy who was perceived as the right of the right hard-liner, Tom was probably one of the most compassionate individuals. He was one of the individuals who understood the common person, because, in his mind, he was one his entire life--one who was never privileged, who earned everything he got, and who banked everything he learned. Ultimately, at the end of his career, he used that for this institution, for the American people, and for people around the world. Early on, I remember Tom and my sitting down with John Dingell, the former Democratic chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. John Dingell, who was a great man and whom Tom and I both liked a lot, either wrote every bill that came out of the Energy and Commerce Committee or his dad did before him for, probably, 60 years. John had an inherent advantage every time we argued legislation because he either wrote it or his dad wrote it. He knew why he did it, and he knew why they structured it the way they did. I think John recognized something in Tom--that here was a guy who could bring fresh life to it. At the time, I remember Chairman Dingell sitting us down and saying: Guys, spend a year listening, not a year talking. Well, that was easy for me to do because I didn't know a whole lot when I got here, but that was the toughest thing Tom Coburn was ever faced with was to be silent because he really came in and wanted to change the world in short order. When he got there, Tom said: I will only be here for 6 years. He accomplished a tremendous amount. His imprint is felt by the people in the House today. You might remember he was probably the loudest voice for government waste--for the size of what we spent, for how much we took from the American people, and for what bad stewards we were of how we used it and spent it. I think Tom left with peace from the House of Representatives because, for the first time in our lifetimes, the budget was balanced. None of us anticipated what would happen in 2000 and the effects of 9/11, and nobody was more shocked than I, in the same year I came from the House to the Senate, to see Tom Coburn run as a Senate candidate for the State of Oklahoma. Tom came in with the same belief that we needed to change things and that we needed to do it quickly. Tom served on the House Intelligence Committee. When he got to the U.S. Senate and served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Tom understood much better the challenges with which we were faced. I will not say that his approach changed but that Tom assessed what was possible and never went for what was impossible. There are Senators in this Chamber who haven't had the good fortune to serve with a Tom Coburn, who haven't been influenced and educated by some of the things Tom Coburn impacted many of us with--those of us who spent our entire careers with him. Yet the American people will feel the benefits of Tom Coburn's education here, his imprint on this institution. James Lankford, the Senator from Oklahoma, picked up his ``Pig Book'' that he put out every year, which is a list of those insane expenditures that Tom Coburn used to come up with on an annual basis to make us all feel shameful about the appropriations process. Thank goodness Tom Coburn did that because James Lankford still does it today on an annual basis. I probably can't point to anything more important than healthcare to tell you how Tom's impact on this institution has been felt, and I think it will be felt for years to come. Tom and I believed that there was a different direction, not because we were smart but because the one we were on didn't work I remember sitting down with Dr. Coburn, and he said: We are going to change the healthcare architecture. I said: Tom, you have been doing this for a long time. What architecture works? He said: Well, we are going to have to try them all, and when we find one that doesn't fail, we will know that one is right. When he got to that point, without hesitation, Tom came to the Senate floor and talked about the Patients' Choice Act over and over and over again. In the 3 or 4 years since Tom has been gone from the institution, the debate has shifted. In fact, where Tom Coburn was and where he tried to tell our colleagues we needed to settle--in empowering patients and bringing transparency to healthcare--is something we struggle with today. There was no bigger advocate for transparency in healthcare costs than Tom Coburn, and when the administration tried to administer that this year, hospitals went to court and won--meaning, they don't have to publish pricing. To the average person, that makes no sense. For those of us who had been on the frontline with Tom Coburn, finally, an administration had done it only to see it overruled. Yet, even on the day he died, it was one of the key things that Tom believed--that transparency was absolutely essential in the healthcare process. I can remember Tom was not new to cancer. I think he fought cancer four or five times. One day, during his most recent battle, we were coming up on the Christmas holiday, I remember, and I think he was in his chemotherapy treatment. He was still in the U.S. Senate, and Tom was exhausted at the time. In between votes, he would go to the cloakroom and lie down on the couch. Everybody knew he didn't feel well. When he would get up to vote, we would look at the pillow. It looked like a cat had been on it as Tom's hair would stay on the pillow. Now, he never lost it all, but we understood the challenges he was going through in his own personal life that he never expressed with any of his colleagues or friends. I have never seen a person who battled as peacefully as did Tom Coburn. His impact will be felt for generations to come, not just here but by the kids he delivered in Oklahoma, who today are 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 years old--kids who will grow up reading about their hero from Oklahoma. Though Tom had a distinguished congressional career and will be remembered for a lot of legislative victories, that is not Tom Coburn's greatest claim to fame. I have never known an individual more devoted to a wife than Tom Coburn was to Carolyn. She was a beauty queen. She was when she was young, and she was, in Tom's eyes, on the day he died. He loved her without question. Tom also loved his daughters. He was so proud of their accomplishments. He and Carolyn worked to make sure they finally moved so they had everybody close. I think Tom knew that the wheel of luck was going to run out. Yet, you see, that is not the way Tom looked at it. He wanted to spend every precious moment with his wife, his kids, and his grandchildren. He wanted any impact and impression he could make to be on that next generation of Coburns. For all of the qualities in Tom Coburn that I could talk about, there is not enough time to really praise him. It would take days, and it would take many individuals to come up and do it. It is probably impossible to say goodbye to a friend like Tom Coburn. To me, there is no question that I came to trust and value everything that Tom stood for. The one thing about Tom Coburn that many people knew was that Tom had this tremendous peace about himself. I think some might have thought it was because Tom had had such a stellar background and had known so much. The truth is, if you had sat and talked to Tom, you would have found out the truth. Tom loved his Lord Jesus Christ. He didn't hide it. When given the opportunity, he wanted to share that peace with anybody who was willing to sit and listen. Tom was criticized for where he lived because it was certainly religious in leaning, but that was Tom's life. As much as he adored his wife and children and grandchildren, he adored his Lord just as much. My colleagues were blessed to have Tom Coburn's influence on this institution. Not everybody in America understands how blessed they are to have had his influence on the policies and the way future generations will be impacted by Tom Coburn for all of his works. Today Tom may be in Heaven--no, today Tom is in Heaven, and I would bet my colleagues that he is giving them hell. He is up there trying to change the architecture of the deck chairs. He is up trying to say: Why do we do things this way and not that way? One of the things that used to bug Tom about this institution is he couldn't figure out why we had telephones in the U.S. Senate that looked as though they were created in 1950. You might remember, about 5 or 6 years ago, the Senate got new phones. They still will not redial from the last number you called, and they still look like they are from the Soviet era of the 1950s, but that is the way the U.S. Senate is, and that is what Tom was trying to change. In many aspects he may not have changed the telephone, but he changed the institution. He changed the way we look at it. Although he may be challenging the rules in Heaven today, make no mistake about him, he is still preaching the Word and he has always believed that Word. For all of the things Tom Coburn tried to accomplish, he did it in a way that his Lord would have been proud of him. My colleagues, I know others will pay tribute to Tom Coburn's work here. I am here today to pay tribute to Tom Coburn's life, not just the impact he had on this institution or the Congress of the United States as a whole but the example he set for all of us that life doesn't have to be fair. But we as individuals have to be committed, and Tom Coburn was committed to everything in life that he did. I am sure today Tom continues to preach commitment to those who will listen. With that, I honor his passing, and I say this to him in the spirit that it is meant. Several days after we got word that he had passed, I said to my wife: With COVID-19 and Congress dislocated, what would Tom Coburn have done? She looked at me and she said: He would have grown a beard. We all remember those days when, all of a sudden, he would show up, and the beard was grown, and he would say: Until this is over, I am not going to shave. And that day I decided not to shave. I was going to give this tribute to Tom Coburn last week. The events of last week didn't permit me to come do that tribute, and I couldn't make it through this week until I got home and shaved because it was the most aggravating thing that I have ever had, and I understood why in 64 years I hadn't grown any facial hair. I proved that I could do it because I was honoring my friend. I hope that others in this institution will look on Tom Coburn's contributions in the same way I do, as a very special exposure that we all had. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. I object.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to thank my colleague. He has shown more interest in this bill today than he has ever in the history of tools that keep us safe. I remember Paul Harvey on the radio. He always came on and said: ``Now, for the rest of the story.'' Senator Lee has never supported this bill, never supported giving any of these authorities to law enforcement. And let me explain what they are--roving wiretap and lone wolf. Lone wolf is that individual out there who pops up, whom we can find, who is not tied to an international terrorist group but is homegrown. On wiretapping, we are going to take roving wiretaps away from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and we are going to take it away for terrorism. But since 1960, they have had roving wiretaps for organized crime--think about that--and then business records and their access to business records to find those clues that we need to keep America safe. Senator Lee talked about us holding hostage. No, we are not holding anybody hostage. He is holding the bill hostage to get amendments, some of which shouldn't even be considered under the reauthorization of section 215. They are FISA reforms being taken up by the Senate Judiciary Committee. That bill that came over from the House--the one supported by Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler--is actually a bipartisan bill that 63 percent of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have supported. It is Leader McCarthy. I will not go down the list of them. But it is easy to make this out as the boogeyman. But to my colleagues, we don't play national security risk, boogeyman games against the American people. We err on the side of providing as many tools as we possibly can to make sure that our oath to keep America safe is as robust as it possibly can be. Now, why do we need to do this? It is because we need to provide law enforcement the certainty of knowing that they can continue to use these tools. If not, we are going to have cases that they are working on today where they have to stop at midstream and start over at some point later on. The question is, Will they be able to, or will they have lost the coverage they need on a certain individual? Now, what happens if they are gone? Well, we have been there. This is the result of trying to create guardrails that these agencies operated in. The President, under 12333 authority, can do all of this without Congress's permission, with no guardrails, with no ability to go in and say: Stay within this. That authority exists. The thing that I hear the most is that we want the ability for an amicus to go in and represent somebody in front of this foreign intelligence court. Well, let me tell you something that you are never going to be told. The court itself has the authority, today, to assign an amicus to any case that comes before the court. And what better judge is there to make a determination as to whether an individual on whom there is an application on for FISA coverage than the court itself to determine: Is this a person, an individual, who needs to be represented by a third party? No, it is not good enough to let the courts do it; they want to make sure that everybody does it. And when everybody does it, we slow down a process because that is what they are there for. We slow down a process that is there trying to be ahead of the security risk that might have been prevented. Personally, I am ready for a big debate. We are going to have it next week, and we can have a debate on every one of the amendments of Senator Lee and the list of people he gave, and I think that they will be struck down. But I am not going to have a 45-day extension. I will let us go dark. I will let us go dark, and if there is a need, the President, by Executive order, can do it for whatever period people think they are willing to let it expire. I will make every attempt to try to get this process of reviewing FISA--not 215--in the Judiciary Committee, where it should come out of, where the folks on the Judiciary Committee, who are experts on the interactions with the court, have an opportunity to have input. These amendments may never come out of the Judiciary Committee. They may never come out. Yet they want to expedite them and bring them right to the floor on a bill that is not necessarily appropriate to put them on. Why? It is because they know by themselves they will never become law. They will have a tough time. So they will hold up those tools that we use for national security in an effort to try to get some changes. Well, I am holding the changes. This is not a straight reauthorization. This is a bill that has very carefully been crafted by the Attorney General, the Speaker of the House, and the minority leader of the House. Sixty-three percent of the Republicans and not as many a percentage of the Democrats supported it. I think it was 270-some votes out of the House of Representatives. Truthfully, by unanimous consent today the Senate should approve what they passed, but we will not because somebody wants to demand all of these amendments. So for that reason, I object.

Mr. BURR. I object.

Mr. BURR. I object.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, in my 25 years representing North Carolina in Congress, I have cast thousands of votes, each with its own significance. The ones that weigh most heavily are those that send our men and women in uniform into armed conflict. Those are the votes I spend the most time debating before casting--first and foremost because of the human cost involved but secondly because they hold the power to irrevocably set the course of American history. With similar consideration, I have taken a sober and deliberate approach to the impeachment proceedings of the last few weeks, conscious of my constitutional responsibility to serve as an impartial juror. As the investigative body, the House has charged President Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate's role is to determine whether the House has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and whether, if true, these charges rise to the level of removing the President from office. After listening to more than 70 hours of arguments from the House managers and the President's counsel, I have concluded that the House has not provided the Senate with a compelling reason for taking the unprecedented and destabilizing step of removing the President from office. In my role as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have visited countries all over the world. What separates the United States from every other nation on Earth is our predictable, peaceful transitions of power. Every 4 years, Americans cast their ballots with the confidence their vote will be counted and the knowledge that both winners and losers will abide by the results. To remove a U.S. President from office, for the first time in history, on anything less than overwhelming evidence of ``Treason, Bribery, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors'' would effectively overturn the will of the American people. As the Speaker said last year, ``Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.'' I believe the Speaker was correct in her assessment. A year later, however, the House went down that exact path, choosing to conduct a highly partisan impeachment inquiry, with underwhelming evidence, in a deeply flawed process. The House had ample opportunity to pursue the answers to its inquiry in order to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. They chose not to do so. Instead, investigators followed an arbitrary, self-imposed timeline dictated by political, rather than substantive, concerns. For example, the House did not attempt to compel certain witnesses to testify because doing so would have meant confronting issues of executive privilege and immunity. They argued navigating executive privilege--something every administration lays claim to--may have caused some level of delays and involved the courts. At the time, the House justified their decision by claiming the issue was too important, too urgent, for any delays. Yet, after the House voted on the Articles of Impeachment, the Speaker waited 4 full weeks before transmitting the articles to the Senate. Those were weeks the House could have spent furthering its inquiry, had it not rushed the process. Instead, without a hint of irony, House leadership attempted to use that time to pressure the Senate into gathering the very witness testimony their own investigators chose not to pursue. Additionally, in drafting the Articles of Impeachment, the House stated President Trump committed ``Criminal bribery and honest services wire fraud,'' two crimes that carry penalties under our Criminal Code. Inexplicably, the House chose not to include those alleged criminal misdeeds in the articles sent to the Senate, much less argue them in front of this body. At every turn, it appears the House made decisions not based on the pursuit of justice but on politics. When due process threatened to slow down the march forward, they took shortcuts. When evidence was too complicated to obtain or an accusation did not carry weight, the House created new, flimsy standards on the fly, hoping public pressure would sway Senate jurors in lieu of facts. The Founding Fathers who crafted our modern impeachment mechanism predicted this moment, and warned against a solely partisan and politically motivated process. In Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton wrote, ``In many cases [impeachment] will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.'' Hamilton believed impeachment was a necessary tool but one to be used when the evidence of wrongdoing was so overwhelming, it elevated the process above partiality and partisanship. The House has failed to meet that standard. The Founders also warned against using impeachment as recourse for management or policy disagreements with the President. Prior to America's founding, impeachment had been used for centuries in England as a measure to reprimand crown-appointed officials and landed gentry. At the time, it included the vague charge of ``maladministration,'' as well. During the Constitutional Convention in 1787, George Mason moved to add ``maladministration'' to the U.S. Constitution's list of impeachable offenses, asking: ``Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Attempts to subvert the Constitution may not be Treason as above defined.'' I submit for this body James Madison's response: ``So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate.'' Madison knew that impeachment based purely on disagreements about governance would turn the U.S. Congress into a parliamentary body, akin to those tumultuous coalitions in Europe, which could recall a President on little more than a whim. To do so would subordinate the Executive to the Congress, rather than delineating its role as a coequal branch of our Federal Government. And with political winds changing as frequently then as they do now, he saw that every President could theoretically be thus impeached on fractious and uncertain terms. In a functioning democracy, the President cannot serve at ``the pleasure of Senate.'' He must serve at the pleasure of the people. Gouverneur Morris supported Madison's argument, adding at the time: ``An election every four years will prevent maladministration.'' Thus ``maladministration'' was not made an impeachable offense in America, expressly because we have the recourse of free and fair elections. I bring up this story for two reasons. First, the Founder's decision signals to me they felt strongly that an impeachable offense must be a crime akin to treason, bribery, or an act equally serious, as defined in the Criminal Code. Second, this story tells me the Founders believed anything that does not meet the Constitutional threshold should be navigated through the electoral process. By that standard, I do not believe the Articles of Impeachment presented to the Senate rise to the level of removal from office, nor do I believe House managers succeeded in making the case incumbent upon them to prove. Given the weak underpinnings of the articles themselves and the House's partisan process, it would be an error to remove the President mere months before a national election; therefore, I have concluded I will vote to acquit President Donald J. Trump on both articles of impeachment.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chief Justice, I have a question for both sets of counsel, sponsored by myself, Senator Cruz, Senator Scott of South Carolina, Hawley, Sasse, and Rubio.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk for counsel to the President.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, this explanation reflects the status of negotiations and disposition of issues reached between the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020. This bill is named after two dedicated staffers--Matthew Young Pollard of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and Damon Paul Nelson of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence--whose contributions to America will have an enduring, positive impact on our national security. The explanation shall have the same effect with respect to the implementation of this act as if it were a joint explanatory statement of a conference committee. The explanation comprises three parts: an overview of the application of the annex to accompany this statement, unclassified congressional direction, and a section-by-section analysis of the legislative text. I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Explanatory Statement for the Damon Paul Nelson and Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 be printed into the Record.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BURR. Mr. President, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has worked over the past 3 years to build a critical piece of legislation. The Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 supports vital important programs and takes bold steps to defend this country. Last year, the Senate Intelligence Committee unanimously passed our bill with a vote of 15 to 0. ``Unanimous'' is not a word you hear very much in Washington today, but it speaks to the importance of the issues and the comprehensiveness of this bill. This success is also thanks to the efforts of Vice Chairman Warner. In June we partnered with our colleagues on the Armed Services to simultaneously push forward both bills. The NDAA and the IAA combination passed with a vote of 86 to 8. Likewise, the House Intelligence Committee bill captured an overwhelming vote in the full House when it passed in July by a vote of 397 to 31. After many months of work and negotiations, we have before us a bipartisan, comprehensive bill that improves our defenses today and will give the intelligence community the resources it needs to defend us in the years to come. For example, it deters Russian and other foreign influence in our elections and facilitates information sharing between Federal, State, and local election officials. It protects the Nation's supply chain from counterintelligence threats from countries such as Russia and China. In order to accomplish these goals, the bill increases scrutiny of Russian activities in our country. We require Russian diplomats to notify the State Department of their travel inside the United States. We counter Russian propaganda, and we require threat assessments on Russian financial activities. To accomplish these missions, we need highly talented counterintelligence officers. We must verify that they are worthy of these positions of extreme trust, and we must compensate them fairly for the sacrifices they make. So our bill improves the security clearance process--and large credit goes to the vice chairman--by reducing backlogs, improving clearance information sharing, and holding the executive branch responsible for the modernizing the clearance process. Our bill supports the intelligence community personnel by enhancing pay scales for certain cyber security positions, increasing recruitment efforts, and creating a pathway to give new parents the time they need to support their growing families. We ask our Nation's defenders to miss soccer games and family dinners. We can give them space and security to support new moms, new dads, and new babies. Lastly, the bill continues a long and vital history of accountability for our most sensitive intelligence programs. My colleagues and I on the committee have happily accepted the privilege and the weighty responsibility of monitoring the intelligence programs on behalf of all 85 of our colleagues. We have done so with reasoned debate and bipartisan agreement, and we have done so knowing that even though new threats keep us up at night, they are oftentimes being met by heroic men and women who allow the rest of us in this country to sleep soundly. It is noteworthy that the last intelligence authorization bill was enacted on May 5, 2017. We cannot afford to go this long again without the authorities that our intelligence agencies need to do their work. We must be credible, dependable, and yearly check on intelligence activities. One final note, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2018, 2019, and 2020 is named for two of our colleagues whom we lost recently. Matthew Pollard and Damon Nelson worked for the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, respectively. Their families lost them too soon, and we are poorer for the loss of their friendship and their expertise. We are proud to pass this bill in their honor and look forward to its swift enactment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BURR

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 minute in opposition.

Mr. BURR. Madam President, I reluctantly rise in opposition to this legislation, and I have worked with Senator Isakson over the years on FDA legislation. I want to be perfectly clear that I agree with all of the reforms that are in this piece of legislation within the over-the-counter division at FDA. I simply disagree with the way in which this legislation provides the resources to achieve these reforms because I don't believe it will result in what the expectations are of the authors. When the drug industry first agreed to user fees in 1993, the fee to file a new drug application was $100,000. Today that fee is $2.1 million. To that end, the FDA has struggled to uphold its end of the bargain, falling behind in its commitment to hire the number of employees the agency needs to actually review the applications that cost millions of dollars to file. The FDA continues to increase the amount of user fee dollars it requires to review applications, eroding the balance of congressional oversight provided by the appropriation of taxpayer dollars. I encourage my colleagues that what Johnny is trying to do is the right thing to do, but it is the wrong way to pay for it. I yield the floor. The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read the third time.